Dec 12, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump has promised to use the military to conduct mass deportation. Now, sanctuary cities across the United States are proactively preparing for the anticipated deportation initiatives under President Trump's administration.
This article breaks down the deportation process, examines what mass deportations could look like, and explores how sanctuary cities respond to these challenges.
(Image Source: Center for Immigration Studies, “Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States.” Available at: https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States.)
President-elect Donald Trump has introduced a sweeping deportation plan targeting millions of undocumented immigrants. The plan’s initial focus will reportedly be on individuals with criminal records and those under existing deportation orders.
The Trump deportation plan prioritizes speed by reducing procedural hurdles. How does the 47th President aim to achieve that? Trump intends to declare a national emergency to deploy military resources and bypass standard enforcement methods. Additionally, his administration proposes expanded use of expedited removal and tighter collaboration between federal and local authorities.
Deportation, often referred to as removal within the immigration system, begins when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) identifies individuals who may have violated immigration laws. ICE conducts arrests through workplace raids, local law enforcement partnerships, or targeted operations. Once apprehended, individuals receive a charging document called a Notice to Appear (NTA), which formally starts the removal process when it is filed with an immigration court.
An immigration judge reviews the case in court, deciding whether the individual qualifies for relief from removal, such as asylum or cancellation of removal. If removal is ordered, the individual can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and sometimes to the federal courts. While this process provides several legal safeguards, it can be lengthy and resource-intensive.
Trump’s plan would change aspects of this process. It expands expedited removal, an abbreviated procedure that allows ICE to deport individuals without court hearings if they cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for a specific time. The plan also limits appeal opportunities and authorizes ICE officers to issue deportation orders for certain cases without involving a judge (referred to as issuing an “administrative order of removal”).
Donald Trump’s deportation plan targets one million undocumented immigrants annually, making it one of the most ambitious immigration enforcement efforts in U.S. history. No similar deportation operation on its scale will have been seen in the United States since 1954 when the Eisenhower administration carried out “Operation Wetback”. The Trump plan focuses on scaling up operations and reducing delays.
The administration plans to use emergency powers to deploy military resources for enforcement. This includes assisting ICE with raids, detentions, and removals. States like Texas are already preparing large detention centers to accommodate the expected surge in detainees.
The plan also targets sanctuary cities, where local governments resist cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Trump proposes deputizing local police officers to work with ICE, increasing the reach of federal efforts in these jurisdictions. Such deputization of state and local enforcement is authorized by section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), discussed below, which allows ICE to use local police to augment its own capacity to apprehend and charge suspected immigration law violators.
For undocumented immigrants, the consequences are severe. Families risk separation, especially in cases involving mixed-status households (those in which some members possess lawful immigration status and some don’t). Long-term residents, many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades, face sudden detentions and removals, throwing their and their families’ lives into chaos. The economic impact will ripple through industries that depend on immigrant labor, including construction, hospitality, and agriculture, to name a few, disrupting local economies and communities.
Sanctuary cities across the United States are expressing significant concerns about being compelled to participate in federal deportation efforts, particularly through the implementation of Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Under such provisions, the Department of Homeland Security delegates some immigration enforcement duties to state and local law enforcement agencies. But that comes with certain concerns such as:
To that end, the whole process is not without resistance. For instance, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has taken a firm stance against cooperating with federal deportation initiatives. He has stated, "We will not use city resources to enforce federal immigration laws, even if it means facing legal consequences." Johnston has also indicated a willingness to engage in civil disobedience to protect undocumented residents, suggesting that Denverites might participate in actions reminiscent of a "Tiananmen Square moment" to block mass deportations.
On the other hand, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved an ordinance declaring the city a "sanctuary," prohibiting the use of municipal resources and personnel to enforce federal immigration laws. This move aims to protect immigrant communities in response to federal deportation plans.
Given the scope, sensitivity, and complexity of the process, sanctuary cities across the United States are preparing for sweeping changes to immigration enforcement under President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed deportation plan.
Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that limit their involvement with federal immigration enforcement. This approach prioritizes community safety, trust, and local governance. The sanctuary movement began in the 1980s when faith-based groups and local governments provided refuge to Central American immigrants fleeing violence. Today, sanctuary cities are resisting federal deportation efforts by focusing on protecting their residents and preserving local resources.
These cities enhance public safety by encouraging undocumented residents to report crimes and engage with local authorities without fear of deportation. They also defend civil rights by reducing the risk of racial profiling and ensuring fair treatment for all residents. While critics argue sanctuary cities harbor criminals, these jurisdictions continue prosecuting crimes without prioritizing immigration status. Contrary to misconceptions, they operate within legal frameworks and comply with federal law, choosing not to honor voluntary immigration detainers.
The federal government frequently pressures sanctuary cities to comply with immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold funding. Despite these attempts, courts have consistently ruled such actions unconstitutional, affirming the right of local governments to determine their policies.
Some of the main sanctuary cities in the United States include (not limited to):
Sanctuary cities adopt local policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while sanctuary states apply similar protections statewide, ensuring consistency across all jurisdictions. Here is the updated list of sanctuary states:
In response to the proposed measures, cities like Los Angeles and Chicago have significantly increased funding for legal aid programs. These programs provide immediate access to attorneys, ensuring residents understand their rights and are prepared to navigate immigration enforcement scenarios, such as ICE raids or detentions.
At the same time, local governments are strengthening legal protections by passing ordinances that explicitly limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. For example, Los Angeles has formalized policies prohibiting city resources from being used to support federal deportation efforts, further solidifying its stance as a sanctuary city.
Moreover, cities are ramping up outreach efforts to educate residents about their rights. By distributing “Know Your Rights” materials, hosting workshops, and launching public awareness campaigns, sanctuary cities are addressing widespread fear and misinformation.
In addition to local measures, cities are building alliances with advocacy groups and legal organizations to bolster their defenses. Cities like Denver and New York City are leading efforts to create rapid-response networks that provide emergency legal assistance during ICE operations.
Sanctuary cities are also preparing for federal funding threats by reallocating state and local resources to critical programs.
All in all, the aim of these measures is to strengthen their defenses against federal immigration enforcement and also reaffirm their commitment to community trust, inclusivity, and local autonomy.
Immigration lawyers face mounting challenges as federal deportation policies intensify. Sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities present unique dynamics that require tailored strategies for effective legal representation.
Despite local protections, federal authorities may increase operations within these jurisdictions, leading to heightened anxiety among undocumented individuals. Lawyers must navigate the complex interplay between local non-cooperation policies and federal enforcement actions. This requires staying informed about both local ordinances and federal directives to effectively counsel clients.
Additionally, the federal government has attempted to compel sanctuary cities to comply with immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold federal funds. While many of these attempts have faced legal challenges, the potential for reduced resources can strain local services that clients depend on, indirectly affecting their well-being.
Clients in non-sanctuary cities face distinct challenges due to the absence of local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In these areas, local law enforcement often collaborates closely with agencies like ICE, increasing the risk of detention and deportation for undocumented individuals.
To support these clients, lawyers should:
With these strategies, lawyers can better protect clients in environments with heightened enforcement risks.
The dynamic nature of immigration law necessitates that lawyers remain adaptable to policy shifts. Docketwise offers tools designed to assist legal professionals manage their businesses more efficiently, enabling them to remain profitable and consistent in a changing landscape. From immigration forms automation to case tracking and client relationship management, Docketwise helps immigration lawyers save time that would otherwise be spent on manual tasks.
Moreover, Docketwise's client communication capabilities, including secure messaging and task management, facilitate effective client interactions and case tracking.
Want to enjoy these benefits? Schedule a demo and see just how much your practice efficiency improves.
